Journal zogger's Journal: Frontloading and how the GOP is snatching defeat..... 11
...from the jaws of victory. First, I can't believe how much they are defending wall street this go around. Scandal after ripoff, and about the bulk of the public is "fed" up to here with their excesses. So what does the stupid party do? Start freaking out like they want to "destroy capitalism". This is *epic fail*, alienate all the fence sitters again, and half the true believers. Why don't they just take out a lot of billboards "hey, mainstreet! We hate you and are going to take your lunch money....and breakfast money..and dinner money..and snacks.."
Anyway, a nice piece here on "frontloading" or how all the fast computerized trades from those whopper casino banks are basically working with "insider information" that is a license to steal money out of the market. This is one of the ways they "earn" profits. This also goes back, remember this story, where a programmer walked out with GS's trading program, and some doofus (I think in the SEC) said that "in the wrong hands, this could manipulate the market"? Correct, 100%, and is exactly one of the ways GS and a few others *have* been manipulating the markets.
Another reason to put investing back into the market, institute credible buy and hold time periods, like a year or two, and outright ban computer trades.
Coming back around (Score:2)
There's a least a few GOP left who don't approve of the kamikaze political model.
Or tax them on a time basis (Score:2)
Sold it off in less than a day - 90% tax
Sold it off in less than a week - 80% tax
Sold it off in less than a month - 70% tax
Sold it off in less than a quarter - 60% tax
Sold it off in less than 6 months - 50% tax
Sold it off in less than 1 year - 25% tax
Sold it off in less than 2 years - 10% tax
It would also kill off some of the scandals with options grants. You still get the grant, but you've got to stick with it (and the compa
Taxes (Score:1)
I just never think they are necessary at all with a fiat currency system. I don't like social engineering under the table that way, I prefer an upfront carved in stone law with a reason. Investing should be *investing*, not speculating/gambling so much, it takes time for a company to get goods and services out there. That means it should be medium to long haul holdings all the time.
I also like the idea that companies should never have a majority of shares held outside the employee pool. I like all owner/wor
It's like... (Score:1)
...the GOP leadership said "let's try to throw away all the gains we're supposedly going to get in November, by doing our own version of something hugely unpopular with an overwhelming majority of Americans". If I didn't already know that it's really due to the "we're frickin' royalty" attitude of our elected officials, I'd have said the two parties are in a contest to out-stupid one another.
Re: (Score:1)
Then again, it looks more like a political ploy by the Left to make us think the GOP is opposing financial regulatory reform: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100423/pl_nm/us_financial_regulation_usa_1 [yahoo.com]
The problem with the news is, if you don't follow it, you're uninformed, but if you do, you're misinformed. And I'm tired of being manipulated.
two years of opportunity (Score:1)
they had all the time in the world to read the tea leaves and come up with their own financial reform package. Sat on their hands. Just like with healthcare "reform" and a number of other issues. They oppose this and oppose that..a lot of times with good reason..but never much in the way of a constructive idea to put forth. The only thing I read was a general feeling to leave wall street alone, they are dojng just fine....not sure what universe they live in, but it ain't this one.
Note: not saying I support
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, I see that your overall point still stands. And how. There's literally just absolutely zero point zero zero zero etc. in there that I can disagree with.
I really do need to move on, like you have. Party-wise, that is -- philosophically and goggles-wise you're quite a bit too Left IMO (tho nowhere near as far as one could go), but here I think you see it right on. The difficulties are that I and many, maybe even most, of the teabaggers and sympathizers are recovering Republicans, I think. Not the Left-w
Thee's some to that (Score:1)
Reagan got a *lot* of dem and blue collar votes. He had a ton of faults, and wasn't the most pro freedom guy out there, his record as Cal governor has some rather disturbing aspects to it, along with iran contra and supporting dictators and death squads covertly, etc., but we did have a little upsurge in USA pride then, and we *did* see that Wall come down. Real mixed bag there
Newt's party did good for six months, then collapsed. Now I have a theory, can't prove it, but here it is. At the highest levels, th
Re: (Score:1)
You should run for national public office. I think the bulk of where we disagree is only in emphasis (for example I'm for *some* govt., just precious little), so I'd vote for you. And you have more historical context than I do. And America, esp. right now, needs people with that and who are incorruptible, as I think you are.
A big transformation is underway -- sure, started long ago, but I think is obviously being accelerated nowadays. I mean, take the EPA's recent campaign inviting people to share in the cr
I might (Score:1)
I considered it before, but I am content to wait until the USA collapses, then perhaps in some regional effort I might reconsider it again. The USSR collapsed when it went bankrupt and too corrupt, and it happened fast. The USA will have the same thing happen..I also think it might occur in the UK.
This is why I pay attention to macro economics, although I don't directly participate in that system. I do future analysis and look at patterns, at what happens, at how they get the controlled press to keep the pr